Questions for Conservatives

[RetiredGySgt]

I am often amazed at how consistent and similar conservatives are when it comes to a variety of issues. It is as if they all listen to the same reality show. So I am wondering if their reasons for believing the same things are the same too? There is one rule for answering, answers should not include the opposition.

Why do conservatives believe global warming is a natural phenomenon and homosexuality is not a natural phenomenon? Neither is well understood.

Neither is well understood, your words, yet you buy them both hook line and sinker. I do not doubt Global warming is occurring and I do not doubt man may have had some small part to do with the current trend, BUT the science does not support the claim we caused it and we can fix it. Explain again how it is EVERY planet in the solar system is heating yet we only live on this one and WE are to blame just for this one?

Why are conservatives abandoning George W. Bush? Did he not follow key conservative policy to reduce taxes, reduce government help, and increase the military?

For Conservatives abandoning the President he sure has managed to veto some things the Democrats claim everyone wants.Like every President before him he has made mistakes, but there is no need to abandon him he can not be reelected anyway.

Why do conservatives question evolution?

I do not doubt that nature uses evolution, what I do doubt is that man descended from an ape like creature, until that is proven I will continue to disbelieve it. Once again the science is lacking, it does not prove the point. Questioning it makes absolute sense FROM A SCIENTIFIC standpoint.

Why do conservatives believe in 'trickle down' economics, called 'supply side' today?

As already pointed out, every time it has been used it has resulted in more jobs, more income and more growth, what part of that do you not understand?

Why are conservatives pro war, pro death penalty, but anti foreign aid and anti abortion?

We are in a fight for our survival, and we did not start it. I suggest you wake up before your either dead, enslaved or forcefully converted to Islam, ohh wait, it won't be you, just your future generations, nothing to worry about here. I am not for abortion because it KILLS innocent people that have no voice in the process, I am for the death penalty because it eliminates threats to our society, and only because they caused they are guilty. I am not against foreign aid.

Why are conservatives anti public education?

Conservatives are not anti education, they ARE opposed to the Illegal Usurpation of the Power of the States and local Communities.

Why are conservatives anti affirmative action?

If racism is bad, why support it with Government run programs that mandate racism?

Why do conservatives want to break down the separation between church and state?

Separation of Church and State does not mean what you claim it means.

As to your "rule" , you want to limit our ability to respond so as to not show the ignorance of your questions, or to prevent us from providing our reason for or against something. If you want an HONEST discussion you do not start it with such a "rule".

 

[Annie]

Marlin Maddoux's real complaint is with life, it changes and he didn't.

Alpha, think I did that already.

Kathianne, jeez, name calling that really amounts to what exactly?

I don't know Mid C, what does posting the same tripe amount to, exactly?

 

[Doug]

Jillian: I agree with you that many conservatives, or at least those who enjoy duelling with liberals on discussion boards, do not see, or pretend not to see, the differences among currents on the Left, and in particular tend to credit, or discredit, Democratic politicians with far more consciousness about what they are doing than is justified.

I cringe whenever I see someone confidently claiming that a centrist Democrat like Hilary Clinton is just a slow-motion communist. It is as stupid as calling Mr Bush a "fascist".

The only point in your post that I would like to argue with you about, with an eye to perhaps having you reconsider your views, is on the question of educational vouchers. I don't think liberals should oppose them -- I mean, you can still be liberal, and support vouchers. In fact, I would claim that vouchers would be a way of helping fulfill liberal values.

Note your objections: "they would destroy the state system" and "they would make education religious". (I am paraphrasing, not quoting.)

But surely the whole point of the "state system" is to provide a good education for children? It is not an end in itself, but a means. If that end can be better provided for by different means, then we should support those means.

If I proposed to take people now living in public housing, and to allow them to buy their own homes, would you object that this is going to destroy public housing?

As for the religious objection, I will answer that later. You might want to spell out your objection to church-run education a bit more. (In the UK, people fight to get their children into Church of England-run schools, because they are believed to have better discipline, and to provide a better education.)

 

[jillian]

The only point in your post that I would like to argue with you about, with an eye to perhaps having you reconsider your views, is on the question of educational vouchers. I don't think liberals should oppose them -- I mean, you can still be liberal, and support vouchers. In fact, I would claim that vouchers would be a way of helping fulfill liberal values.

Note your objections: "they would destroy the state system" and "they would make education religious". (I am paraphrasing, not quoting.)

But surely the whole point of the "state system" is to provide a good education for children? It is not an end in itself, but a means. If that end can be better provided for by different means, then we should support those means.

If I proposed to take people now living in public housing, and to allow them to buy their own homes, would you object that this is going to destroy public housing?

As for the religious objection, I will answer that later. You might want to spell out your objection to church-run education a bit more. (In the UK, people fight to get their children into Church of England-run schools, because they are believed to have better discipline, and to provide a better education.)

I'm afraid I won't change my mind on this. I very strongly believe that the only way to foster both government and religion is to keep them separate. Perhaps you'll understand my point of view better if I explain that I jealously guard the rights of minorities and belonging to a religion which comprises approximately 1.5% of the population of this country, I am quite conscious of when the majority is trying to indoctrinate children into their religious beliefs. Imagine if you will that the majority of people in this country were muslim. How do you think Christians would feel about money being pulled from their public schools to fund madrassas? I suspect they'd feel no different than I do.

Big difference between here and England. England has a state-sponsored religion. Our founders saw fit to protect us from that.

 

[Kid Pickle]

Why do conservatives believe global warming is a natural phenomenon and homosexuality is not a natural phenomenon? Neither is well understood.

Global warming is not a supernatural issue, therefore it must be a natural issue. Scientific reasoning demands that we take all questions into account on something that is not a Law, such as gravity. The earth's climate has changed before there was ever human industry, so we cannot assume that industrial pollution is causing it. It may or it may not, but it is not, as yet, proven to be so. There is also the question of extent. Then we must ask if it is truly detrimental. Then we must ask whether or not we can do anything to "fix" it, if it is indeed a problem or if the systems of the earth are capable of "fixing" the "problem" on thier own. The questions are varied, and science demands that we continue to find answers. The real problem is lack of data. No concrete conclusions can be drawn from scant data. Most who believe in human-caused global warming are just that, believers. It is a case of Wizard's First Rule: "People are stupid, they believe what they want to be true or fear to be true." I want to KNOW before I make it a concern that rivals any of the major concerns in my life.

Homosexuality is also a natural issue. It is, however, a issue of behavior. By definition, sex is a process whose primary function is procreation. Homosexuality doesn't and cannot result in a child. The plumbing is all wrong. It is a sin, like all sexual immorality. It goes against the design and function of human beings. Homosexuality has been around nearly as long as people, and, I think, it is very well understood. When societies reach a level of decadence and moral decline, perversion becomes more and more common. The core of society, the family, breaks down and people engage in all manner of selfish and, ultimately, self-destructive behaviors in a search for self-fulfillment, homosexuality just being one of many. The question is "What is missing?"
Yes, sex is pleasurable, as it was designed to be. It however is best viewed as a great benefit that comes with the job of marriage, not as and end in itself. It would be nonsensical to walk into a company and demand a benefits package when you are not employed there. It is just as illogical, when men and women complement each other so well, fall in love, and are capable of producing and raising children (under general circumstances, of course), that the great benefit of sexual pleasure be a freebie, without consequences to the well-being (physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually) of the individuals involved. Common sense and/or each of our individual expeiriences tell us that this is so, if we are being intellectually honest.
As a diciple of Christ, I know that we all sin. It is a question of recognizing it and being determined to move away, seeking a more abundant way of life, aware that we are all capable of change. The only one who can truly change us is the One who made us. He does so willingly and generously out of His great love love for us, if we simply (or not-so-simply) choose it to be so.

 

[Kid Pickle]

Why are conservatives abandoning George W. Bush? Did he not follow key conservative policy to reduce taxes, reduce government help, and increase the military?

Yes, but he could have done more. He was not very effective in with the "Bully Pulpit" in explaining to the American people the reasoning behind what he and Republicans were pledging to accomplish. Much was not accomplished which, I believe, could have been.
He also did not reduce spending, but, instead signed some of the most outrageous budgets to date. He did not prosecute the war as ferociously as it could have been, ensuring a swifter victory with a lesser loss of American lives. The most important disappointment has been his support for amnesty for illegal aliens and a reluctance to secure the border.
George Bush is not a conservative. We never thought he was. He did some good stuff, and I'm glad we had him as president rather than the AL-ternative. On so many things, however, he and the so-called conservatives in the Legislative Branch have been a colossal dissapointment.

 

[jillian]

Yes, but he could have done more. He was not very effective in with the "Bully Pulpit" in explaining to the American people the reasoning behind what he and Republicans were pledging to accomplish.

Perhaps it's because his policies were unjustifiable and were failures?

Much was not accomplished which, I believe, could have been.
He also did not reduce spending, but, instead signed some of the most outrageous budgets to date.

True.... the mortgaging of our children's futures by spending over 200 billion a year in Iraq is inexcusable, as are the little *presents* the unchecked republicans gave themselves like the 'bridge to nowhere'.

He did not prosecute the war as ferociously as it could have been, ensuring a swifter victory with a lesser loss of American lives.

He shouldn't have prosecuted the war at all. We weren't attacked by Iraq.

The most important disappointment has been his support for amnesty for illegal aliens and a reluctance to secure the border.
George Bush is not a conservative. We never thought he was. He did some good stuff, and I'm glad we had him as president rather than the AL-ternative. On so many things, however, he and the so-called conservatives in the Legislative Branch have been a colossal dissapointment.

Kind of a non-issue, really. Illegal immigration has been pretty much at stable levels for eons. It's the great big right-wing bug-a-boo because it's a wedge issue and gets a certain type of person out to vote.

 

[Alpha1]

I'm afraid I won't change my mind on this. I very strongly believe that the only way to foster both government and religion is to keep them separate. Perhaps you'll understand my point of view better if I explain that I jealously guard the rights of minorities and belonging to a religion which comprises approximately 1.5% of the population of this country, I am quite conscious of when the majority is trying to indoctrinate children into their religious beliefs. Imagine if you will that the majority of people in this country were muslim. How do you think Christians would feel about money being pulled from their public schools to fund madrassas? I suspect they'd feel no different than I do.

Big difference between here and England. England has a state-sponsored religion. Our founders saw fit to protect us from that.

And of course you would deny that Jews and
Christans have been unfairly treated in the recent
past few years....

The two religions that pose practically little to no
threat on the customs, laws and Constitution
of this Country....
Going so far as to deny that what our customs, laws and
Constitution so plainly proclaim is because
of these very religious beliefs.

As a matter of fact, the two religions that teach
and practice the very customs and laws that
are spelled out in the Constitution of the
Country....other than an occasional bigot, are the
religions that lived in freedom for well over 2 hundred
years without any interference from its government.

Our Government would not allow or condone goats
or pigs being sacrificed on the alter of some
alternate religion, would they....?

Our government would not allow young girls
to be circumcised as some religions practice
would they...?

Our laws don't allow or condone multiable wives
as practiced by some religions do they...?

As some whine over 'In God we Trust" on our currency
and 'under God' in our Pledge, inaccurately claiming
that it somehow promotes a 'state religion'....when in reality
it, at best, recognizes only a higher power, .....
nature or supreme being or whatever....and in
no way forces anyone to adhere to anything....

these same few see absolutely nothing strange
about our public schools building foot washers
for a minority to practice their religion in our schools

these same few see absolutely nothing strange
about setting aside or modifying the school day for
a minority religion to say their prayers....

yet, because of holidays, and customs that
we have practiced for over 200
years without a problem, must change to
accommodate newcomers to OUR country...

we are expected to, change and modify
OUR way of life to accommodate all special
groups.....even something a ridiculous as 'ebonics'
being taught in our schools, it boggles the
imagination that that proposal was once seriously debated....
and now we expected to abide to
homosexuals simulating sodomy in public parades...

Are we to be expected to chip away the marble
from our country's monuments because one or two
assholes object to symbol of a cross....
change our state seals .... re-mint our currency,
maybe change the names of some our cities?

Are we to be expected to issue photo ID's to
people that wear hoods over their heads....
Are we to be expected to print our ballots or
post street signs in every language, or supply free
education in 2, 5, 25, 100 languages so newcomers
to our land feel at home....

Just WHF is it you radical lefties want from the people and government
of this country?

 

[jillian]

Anyone who can't figure out that I'm far from radical is pretty much too dense for me to have a converstation with.

I think you'll find the radical is .... you.

 

[Alpha1]

Anyone who can't figure out that I'm far from radical is pretty much too dense for me to have a converstation with.

I think you'll find the radical is .... you.

Well then scratch the word 'radical' and give a coherent answer to the post...
Just WTF do you want from the people of this country and its Government...?

You want perfection? We'll never be perfect....but

When the rest of the world begins to treat others with the dignity, justice, and tolerance we practice, however flawed we may be in your eyes....., then you can bitch and whine and preach your version of values and indoctrinate the children of others....

try thinking for a change instead of our typical one liners.....

 

[Shogun]

Pointing to individual Christians to make your case against Christians as a whole is laughable.

If we had vouchers, probably most Christian parents would pull their kids out of the public schools and put them into private ones. It would be nice to have your kids say a prayer before a football game and not have your first grader given sex ed. Not to mention lots of parents (like inner city blacks) who were not even worried about the indoctrination aspect would ALSO pull their kids out and put them into private ones in order to give their kids a better education. Since 80% Christians send their kids to public schools you leftists would see a realignment in the schools that would probably leave you in the dust choking on your free rubbers.

Apparently, someone needs to remind you that the mission statement of the family research council is not the standard by which the PUBLIC takes the education we all pay for. You seem to think that private christian schools operate in a vacuum. It's laughable that you think they are such a panacea and even funnier that you think it's some avenue to throw your choice of dogma at everyone. No one keeps you or your kid from praying before the football game. by all means, go with your bad praying self. You don't, however, get to make that decision for everyone else. BETTER education? Yes, we see the fruits of bob jones U everywhere, don't we? The ONLY benefits private schools may have ow ARE the direct result of taking such a small load of the education burden. I guess you'd still get to perpetuate the latest flavour of hatred though, eh? Gays and poor kids can always stay in public school, right? Hell, theres a two page chick tract that explains the birds and the bees anyway, right? he's got that whole Origin topic covered for the science class too!

 

[Dr Grump]

And of course you would deny that Jews and
Christans have been unfairly treated in the recent
past few years....

The two religions that pose practically little to no
threat on the customs, laws and Constitution
of this Country....
Going so far as to deny that what our customs, laws and
Constitution so plainly proclaim is because
of these very religious beliefs.

As a matter of fact, the two religions that teach
and practice the very customs and laws that
are spelled out in the Constitution of the
Country....other than an occasional bigot, are the
religions that lived in freedom for well over 2 hundred
years without any interference from its government.

Our Government would not allow or condone goats
or pigs being sacrificed on the alter of some
alternate religion, would they....?

Our government would not allow young girls
to be circumcised as some religions practice
would they...?

Our laws don't allow or condone multiable wives
as practiced by some religions do they...?

As some whine over 'In God we Trust" on our currency
and 'under God' in our Pledge, inaccurately claiming
that it somehow promotes a 'state religion'....when in reality
it, at best, recognizes only a higher power, .....
nature or supreme being or whatever....and in
no way forces anyone to adhere to anything....

these same few see absolutely nothing strange
about our public schools building foot washers
for a minority to practice their religion in our schools

these same few see absolutely nothing strange
about setting aside or modifying the school day for
a minority religion to say their prayers....

yet, because of holidays, and customs that
we have practiced for over 200
years without a problem, must change to
accommodate newcomers to OUR country...

we are expected to, change and modify
OUR way of life to accommodate all special
groups.....even something a ridiculous as 'ebonics'
being taught in our schools, it boggles the
imagination that that proposal was once seriously debated....
and now we expected to abide to
homosexuals simulating sodomy in public parades...

Are we to be expected to chip away the marble
from our country's monuments because one or two
assholes object to symbol of a cross....
change our state seals .... re-mint our currency,
maybe change the names of some our cities?

Are we to be expected to issue photo ID's to
people that wear hoods over their heads....
Are we to be expected to print our ballots or
post street signs in every language, or supply free
education in 2, 5, 25, 100 languages so newcomers
to our land feel at home....

Just WHF is it you radical lefties want from the people and government
of this country?

Christ you talk some tripe. Sometimes it beggars belief. And how many schools in the good old U S of A have to stop teaching so their pupils can do prayer and have installed feet-washing basins? 1? 100? 1000? 10,000?

In case you missed it, the US, like most Western/First world nations is made up of diverse ethnicities and religions. I agree, that if you immigrate to a country, you should try and assimilate to a degree, otherwise why bother coming. That doesn't mean you leave your culture at the door. If that were the case ALL US immigrants since they first arrived in the Americas would have to live in teepees, shoot bow and arrows and spend time skinning buffalo.

Remint your currency? You did it once when "In god we trust" was put on paper money in 1957, so no biggie. There should be no religious symbol on any govt (state or federal) building for a couple of reasons: 1) Putting any religious symbol on any such building automatically - whether intentional or not - puts that religion above all others; and 2: Muslims, atheists, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus, Agnostics etc, etc, are tax payers too. Why should the state or federal govts spend these peoples' monies on very personal view points they do not believe in that have nothing to do with running a govt?

 

[Dr Grump]

When the rest of the world begins to treat others with the dignity, justice, and tolerance we practice, however flawed we may be in your eyes....., then you can bitch and whine and preach your version of values and indoctrinate the children of others....

At an international level - hell even at a national level in some instances - you show little dignity, justice or tolerance. No small thanks to your current regime...

 

[Dr Grump]

Apparently, someone needs to remind you that the mission statement of the family research council is not the standard by which the PUBLIC takes the education we all pay for. You seem to think that private christian schools operate in a vacuum. It's laughable that you think they are such a panacea and even funnier that you think it's some avenue to throw your choice of dogma at everyone. No one keeps you or your kid from praying before the football game. by all means, go with your bad praying self. You don't, however, get to make that decision for everyone else. BETTER education? Yes, we see the fruits of bob jones U everywhere, don't we? The ONLY benefits private schools may have ow ARE the direct result of taking such a small load of the education burden. I guess you'd still get to perpetuate the latest flavour of hatred though, eh? Gays and poor kids can always stay in public school, right? Hell, theres a two page chick tract that explains the birds and the bees anyway, right? he's got that whole Origin topic covered for the science class too!

Not only that, but there was a Brit doco out a few years ago (which I mentioned on this board last year) called (if memory serves) American Texas Virgins - or something similar. It was about abstinance only programmes. What the doco pointed out I found kind of amusing. A lot of the abstinance only kids thought oral sex was not sex or didn't count. Course you can't catch sexual diseases from oral sex, right? Also, guess which group of kids had higher pregnancy rates (hint, it wasn't the kids practicing safe sex)..

Let's be honest Screaming Eagle, you religious wingnuts hate the idea that sex is supposed to be fun! And it is!! And you know what, I think people should bonk their little hearts out because they want to and because they like it, not because some archaic religion that was a cult for 400 years before Constantine on his deathbed decided his whole empire should become Christian, thinks people should only do the wild thing for procreation. If you believe that, fine. I don't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Perhaps it's because his policies were unjustifiable and were failures?



True.... the mortgaging of our children's futures by spending over 200 billion a year in Iraq is inexcusable, as are the little *presents* the unchecked republicans gave themselves like the 'bridge to nowhere'.



He shouldn't have prosecuted the war at all. We weren't attacked by Iraq.



Kind of a non-issue, really. Illegal immigration has been pretty much at stable levels for eons. It's the great big right-wing bug-a-boo because it's a wedge issue and gets a certain type of person out to vote.

Illegal aliens are MORE numerous then ever be for and because of AMNESTY in 1986. They saw it was just a matter of time before they too would suddenly become legal with out following any of the laws or rules of this country.

Unless your going to claim that in 1986 there were 10 to 20 MILLION illegal aliens in this country.

 

[Bern80]

He shouldn't have prosecuted the war at all. We weren't attacked by Iraq.

So we should have waited and allowed our citizens to be killed before we take action.

Kind of a non-issue, really. Illegal immigration has been pretty much at stable levels for eons. It's the great big right-wing bug-a-boo because it's a wedge issue and gets a certain type of person out to vote.

Really? Hispanics were always the largest minority group? I'm also quite sure the U.S. hasn't been here for 'eons'.

 

[Dr Grump]

So we should have waited and allowed our citizens to be killed before we take action.

Please provide proof that Iraq was involved in any way, shape or form with wanting to kill US citizens. Take your time...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please provide proof that Iraq was involved in any way, shape or form with wanting to kill US citizens. Take your time...

Firing on Aircraft in the no fly zone. Trying to Assassinate a US President. Hunting for a terrorist organization to attack the US indirectly. To name 3 off the top of my head.

 

[Dr Grump]

Firing on Aircraft in the no fly zone. Trying to Assassinate a US President. Hunting for a terrorist organization to attack the US indirectly. To name 3 off the top of my head.

Varifiable proof please. Again, take your time...

 

[Bern80]

Please provide proof that Iraq was involved in any way, shape or form with wanting to kill US citizens. Take your time...

I realize you and Rosie like to play word games so I will spell it out for you. For whatever reason you want to turn this into the U.S. attacked Iraq. It was never about attacking Iraq or it's people. It was about removeing it's dictator and his cohorts from power and getting rid of WMDs. To imply that our intent was to invade and kill countrymen under Saddam's boot is quite disingenuous. Whether the WMDs were there or not is irrelevant with regard to our purpose. Our purpose was to rid ourselves of a threat (again whether that perception was accurate is irrelevant). The majority of congress, including Clinton and Kerry beleived he was a threat and are on record as saying as much and should have been dealt with as such.

Do you seriously doubt that Saddam Hussein had ill intentions toward us? Do you seriously believe he would never have become a threat?

I was arguing Jillian's implication. The implaction was that one should always wait to get hit first, whether the threat of being hit is known or not, before striking back, which is just plain stupid.

While you're at it provide proof that my and RGS statements are inaccurate.....take your time.....